Parentification, when it happens to families/societies

Parentification, when it happens to families, may only be the result of benign practices;

  • Children whose parents’ divorce was a nasty fight
  • Children whose parents were addicts
  • Children whose parents were handicapped (physically or mentally)
  • Children of asylumseekers.

(All of which I’ll still consider benign, because there’s no harmful intent by the parents behind it);
Marinka Kamphuis, author of the book “Te vroeg volwassen” (“Adult at a too young age”). https://www.boompsychologie.nl/product/100-2524_Te-vroeg-volwassen distinguishes four categories of ways children deal with it, including these two:

  1. Some provide the need of care by their parents; they support, encourage, settle; are easy going and goody. Have no chance to speak of their own needs, talking about themselves maksz them the feel being selfish or difficult.
  2. The opposite of that is the child that has to remain a child; to meet the parent’s desire to care. These are often youngest or handicapped children that are kept small and dependent by the parents clampingonto their important role as care giver. Kamphuis calls this “passive parentification”, and according to some psychologists it is the worst possible kind. Because if one’s parents do not allow one to develop autonomy, one will not learn to take inititiative or responsability; one cannot handle disappointment. This will be a lifelong handicap.

Here I recognise the poor millennial, who was raised in a horrible manner: at sporting events they earned medals by just showing up: no matter the effort that went into the exercise, they earned a medal. Meaning their self respect never got kindled. Now they feel worthless: they try to compensate by clamping onto whatever cause gets thrust into their face and fighting for it: this means that they put maximum effort into e.g. #ClimateChange, in effect trying to please their overlords. The damage of that would be limited, but their overlords are also our overlords, so everyone gets to suffer the effects of their destructive upbringing.

Which is not their fault! It is the fault of the people that callously experimented with their youth, destroying the lives of everyone, all over the planet, in the process. Goodness forbid, but some of these obssessive activists will also enter the profession of politics, which is another nail in the coffin of the institution: another reason to abolish it now, before the damage it inflicts becomes permanent. Millennial activists are drawn to the most outrageous causes, because those have the best potential for offering self-worth. So they inflict outrageous aounts of damage, andbecone outraged when someone identifies it as such.
Another point that dawned on me when I read about parentification, is that politicians (the more socialistic, the worse it is; remember, they are all socialists to a certain degree, from left to right) parentify society, make citizens feel worthless/incompetent/utterly dependent on the care of the parental unit (the “leader”).
This in turn is harmful to society and to the individuals that make up society (in so far as there is a difference), and unlike that described above by actual parents, is done by design and for the purpose of making the politician feel awesome and awesomely needed. Providing more fodder for the position that socialism is antisocial and egotistic, and brings nothing to the world.

Advertisements

Definition of Fascism by Merriam-Webster is wrong

The dictionary definition of fascism is wrong:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

includes the statement

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

It is right in so many respects, yet becomes PC in one: it claims that fascism is racist; “exalts nation and often race”. Whie true that the facists (under Mussolini) attacked Ethiopia, where people of a different race lived. But this was only done for the greater glory of the political monstrosity called the nation.
Fascism wasn’t racist; at least it was not anti-semitic, there were some prominent fascists who were jews. It was only when the frustrated German socialists yanked the fascist strings (and even invaded Italy at one point) when jews got persecuted for their race.

Fascism was the ultimate expression of politics, and its spirit still lives on. The greater glory of the political construct (hence fable) was elevated above all other interests, including (especially) those of the people. This is eerily similar to the right-wing:

  • The right wing sacrifices the interests of the people to big business
  • The left wing sacrifices the interests of the people to their own petty pleasures.

One iftose pleasures will likely be “basking in the glory of a great nation”, this is were the lines between left and right blur: the left will find part of their desired glory in economic power (which led to Stalin’s Gulag slavery).

This is where the myth comes from that fascism means the integration of the state and the corporation: politics finds particular glory in economic power, sobusinesses get preferetial treatment. Also, because fascism is socialism, corporations were nationalized, which also fed the myth.

Disconcerting environment-news (climate)

I heard some fairly disconcerting news the other day: solar panels (that have a finite life span), are made of non bio degradable components, so by subsidizing them, warmists are subsidizing the growth of permanent trash heaps; governments should stop subsidizing the pollution of the planet. (They should stop subsidizing full stop, but that’s another disussion)

https://m.facebook.com/groups/592667610853437?view=permalink&id=1490342504419272

Don’t blame the Germans (novel idea)

Don’t blame the Germans for attrocities committed during/by Hitler’s regime. Because they were committed by the regime, not the people. People may have voted for Hitler, but one in power, they had no more influence on him, than did Americans who naively voted for hope and change.

Besides, it can reasonably be argued that Chamberlain started WW2, by declaring war on Hitler over the invasion of Poland – which was a bad thing, of course, but the war led directly to the invasion of all countries in the later eastern block, including Poland – which imho was worse than a (brief?) period of Hitler ruling over Poland with an Iron Cross.
Under communist rule (also socialists, remember that), Poland’s inhabitants suffered tremendously, but neighbouring countries’ inhabitants suffered equal amounts.
So what benefit had come to Poland from Chamberlain’s war over the invasion of it? They ended up occupied by a hostile foreign nation anyway, and the fighting againsttheoccupier perhaps also led to casualties.
Who knows, if after Poland, Hitler would have ordered the invasion of more countries? It would be an interesting object of study, and also for an alternative history-tale.

Imagine: a present without NATO – meaning of course, also a present without islamic counterterrorism. Since NATO was founded after the occupation of the eastern block by Stalin’s troops, in Europe; the occupation of Arabian countries by pro-western dictators, which led to 9/11.

Basic slavery

If the basic income would get introduced, that would (in my humble estimation) lead to Soviet-style slavery to get the dirty jobs done (aka the Gulag),because there would be no possible (financial) incentive for people to do the unpleasant jobs, like building tall buildings. That’s how the Soviets ended up with the tall baracks complexes (“Apartment buildings”). They had Gulag slaves to dig the uranium out of the mines, they also used slaves to cut down trees in order to get the wood that was the premier Soviet export commoddity.

Social contract

The “social contract” is supposed to say something to the extent of: “by living in this country, you agree to abide by government’s requirements.
Which could be considered as a justification for the iron curtain: because you were living in the USSR, you agreed to having us make your live as hard as humanly possible. Oh, and we don’t want to let you leave, because your persons are belong to us. !?!?!??

Apart from the (valid) argument “I didn’t sign that!”, how about: “contracts are between 2 or more parties” and clearly government (the failed state) is not holding up its part of the deal, by harming the interests of the people (not only Venezuela, DPRK etc. Do so but certainly every NATO-country which is provoking islamic counterterrorism, and also making war with Russia more likely by the day, by opening new NATO-bases, or holding military exercises, ever closer to the Russian border all the time.
That is NOT representative of the interests of the people!

Then there’s the economic malfeasance of toying with the currency, and so having caused depression after depression.

The following is inspred by http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/

See the bottom video (“You can always leave”)
Why should I leave? I’m not the one creating the bad situation, so why should the burden of departure fall upon me? (If I would leave – where to? Then I would leave behind millions of other victims for politicians, so leaving would be rather selfish. More pragmatically considered: if the entire population just up and left, there would be no country left for politicians to rule.
And besides, if I move into a different society, I implicitly sign its social contract, choosing to feel that the laws and customs are at the top of my list of most desirable ones (least undesirable ones). This leads to the following:

The only way a social contract might be used, is in this weak form:

“When people live among eachother, certain modes of behavior are more conducive to happy cohabitation.”

So people not killing, or stealing from, others, etc. would fall under the social contract. Note that the tit for that-mechanism (or fear there of) will do just fine for encouraging respect of the social contract: there’s no need for a big, extorting, bully, that breaks social contract rules itself (by stealing taxes from the people, by killing some of them – in war, or in a penal system)

It’s not the government I agree to by living there: by (attempting to) rule over us, they agree to abide to our rules. Because the state of nature is independence and so government is an unnatural construct on top of the natural state of being, government is only tolerated so long as they behave acceptably well, so in effect, the people can behave toward government any way it chooses to. Government is on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy (if even that high up, as to be on a rung at all).
Also, it’s society’s rules I agree to live in accordance with (regarding murder etc.), and since government is hostile to society, and in no way representative of society, I owe no allegiance at all to government.